And in the category of best 2008 pictures viewed through a fisheye lens, the winner is ......(May we have the envelope, please?)..(grins)..(looks around, grins again)....ANN ALTHOUSE!.(cheers, applause, whoops).

I thought Sean Penn was brillant. He looked and acted completely different from anything he has done before. It was the best performance by an actor that I had seen this year. I know people dislike him because of his politics but I find him to be one of the most interesting actors around. Also, he is hot.

I tend to like Gus Van Zant movies too. Too Die For; Gerry; Elephant; My Own Private Idaho to name a few that I liked.

After watching the movie I did something that I tend to do all the time. I googled every character to see where they are now. Cleve Jones is an interesting person and I have quite a bit of respect for him.

Sorry. Won't watch it, ever.I saw a documentary on him back in the 1980s. Meh. Minor local political figure assassinated by crazy white guy is a bad-enough premise, but add in the lefty liberal San Fransisco 1970s and I might have to commit suicide by overdosing on twinkies.

Somehow, the right to walk around nude and be masturbated by passersby on the streets doesn't strike me as a fundamental human right, much less a victory to be savored.

Ditto Pogo. I saw the trailer, and was puzzled as to what exactly was the draw - unbalanced minor local political figure assassinated by crazy minor local political figure, in San Francisco(!). If the event itself isn't independently interesting to support historical treatment (cf. Frost/Nixon), the movie lives or dies on the merits of the story, and the story, frankly, looked very, very boring.

As a gay I don't want to walk around nude and be masturbated on by passerbys-that does not sound cool. Actually I don't know any gays that want to walk around nude and be masturbated on. I must of missed that meeting.

Somehow, the right to walk around nude and be masturbated by passersby on the streets doesn't strike me as a fundamental human right, much less a victory to be savored

And this is where Pogo and those who agree with him are always wrong. Thinking that's what they were fighting for then (and now) is not only sad, it's quite indicative of the underlying hatred/fear (and curious fascination) of gay people: that they are sexual deviants constantly exhibiting offensive behavior.

Gay haters (and oh, I know, none of you have a "problem" with gays) like to paint gays as weirdos with unhealthy lifestyles, but each time the gays make inroads joining the mainstream via marriage, adoption, and even anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, the haters do everything in their power to block the progress. Keeping gays on the same level as pedophiles, as Rick Warren recently did, and, to a lesser degree, degrading them with cheap masturbation jokes, is the goal, of course. Keep the perception up that they are deviant, always.

Same here on Sean Penn, Titus. I really really want to write him off for his politics, but he keeps giving great performances in solid movies.

I haven't seen MILK and doubt I will, but per some of the comments above, you probably can't say anything positive about gays without people responding, "Gay sex, eww!" and thinking they've said something intelligent.

One of the "net effects" of Harvey Milk was helping to defeat Prop 6, which would have prevented gay people, and those who "support" them, from teaching school.

Guys walking around in San Fransisco is a net effect of people like Pogo. If straight people didn't freak out about things like Dore Alley and look at pictures of it and post links to it on blogs, Dore Alley never would have been necessary.

I think things like beauty pageants and wet t-shirt contests are gross but I don't go around looking at pictures of them and sharing them with friends.

Pogo, really researches what the gays do. Pogo is interested in reading about these activities. Pogo likes reading about these activities. Pogo would like to observe these activities. Pogo may even be willing to participate in these activities.

Yeah, Zach, curious. So difficult to find this shit when perusing, say, Michelle Malkin and other hater's sites, which is what haters like me do all day.

Look, I can't watch Sean Penn anymore because I can't stop seeing the bonehead paddling around Katrina getting his picture taken in knee-deep water. It's the first thing I think of when I see his face, and I cannot any longer suspend disbelief.

However, his turn as the murderer in Dead Man Walking did change me from anti-death penalty to pro-death penalty, so I do owe him one.

"If straight people didn't freak out about things like Dore Alley and look at pictures of it and post links to it on blogs, Dore Alley never would have been necessary."

Yeah, it's people freaking out that's the problem with Dore Alley, Zach.

"Any more hot gay pixxx to share Pogo?""Yeah, Pogo can you direct me to some more gay sex sites? "I have always found it passing strange that a common method of denigration used by gays is to suggest that those who disagree with them must be gay. Because of course it presumes there is something wrong with being gay. Odd.

Why is that, Zach?No useful arguments, or did that inherent self-hatred part miss you?

Take it easy, Titus. You've won. Your crowd is the establishment. You can't have that and victimhood. No more the thrill of being persecuted for you. Homos are the new ruling class! Nothing but thankless grinding responsibility from now on.

Zachary Paul Sire said..."Keep the perception up that they are deviant, always."

It is deviant, as I pointed out to you (or tried to) last week. It seems to me that the rejection of the characterization of homosexuality as a deviant behavior (which, as I said last week, I do not mean as a pejorative) implies that what is at issue isn't a desire to be tolerated, but a desire to be accepted, an intense desire to be seen as normal no matter what (that desire isn't deviant, but it does suggest rejection issues and unresolved trauma). I don't fret about whether my deviances are accepted, and nor should you. It suffices that they're tolerated (or not noticed).

Titus actually has it down, to tell the truth. He owns his deviant status; he does what and who he wants, and he doesn't much care if anyone approves. There's a lot to be said for that attitude.

The Castells Reader on "Cities and Social Theory" suggests this type of behavior represents "cultural expressions of the need to destroy whatever moral values straight society had left them with since these values have traditionally been used to exploit and repress homosexuality.

...This is why gay celebrations, no matter how brilliant and humorous they are, can only be city celebrations in part. There is always an underlying sexual dimension that is untenable for many people, not only because of its homosexuality but its sexuality.

Unable to build bridges towards a broader and deeper cultural transformation, the gay community is in danger of internal destruction by introspective forces thatmight cause the community to forget that human experience has to be a social experience if it's going to last and grow.".pp.217-8

It's beyond bothersome that gays, like blacks, and other identity groups permit no discussion of these issues ever. Disagreement is heresy.

You think Milk was the gay equivalent of King. Great. I think the Harvey Milk Gay Democratic Club's agenda led directly to what San Fransisco is today. You think it's great? Fine. I beg to differ.

"Zachary Paul Sire said... Simon, I'll stop asking to be seen as "normal" when people stop going out of their way to label me "abnormal" by passing discriminatory laws against me and comparing me to pedophiles. Thank you."

So, if I understand you correctly, you are determined to be unreasonable as long as others are too? You must realize that there will always be unreasonable people out there. Are you going to let that fact keep you from ever being reasonable?

Palladian - It seems Trooper is on his 3rd or 4th Jager about now. What are you saying about him? I'm drinking a Negra Modelo because it's 70 degrees here this afternoon, and the mountain snow is disappearing fast.

ZPS - are you really trying to argue equivalence between Up Your Alley and a bikini contest in a bar? Is the Alley an otherwise public place or is it private property? You normally write so cogently, but I think you are off the mark a bit here.

It's not hypocracy or self-hate to point out that some elements of the "gay community" (using the term for lack of a better one) have been and continue to be destructive and depraved. But the eternal conundrum with identity politics is that exclusion of anyone, or any group, from the "fold" is ultimately denounced as bigotry. Therefore there can only be inclusion, and there can never be discrimination (using the positive sense of the word). This is how you end up with the Folsom Street Fair and NAMBLA and how you go from being gay & lesbian to LesGayBiTgTsGenderQueerEtc. I think all identity politics groups will eventually coalesce into a giant, whiny, useless ball of grievance that will call itself US and call the rest of us THEM before it rolls over and squishes us.

No problem Pogo. On body weight alone we are just even. Plus it is so cold here today the Jager is not having any effect.

I am just doing one with everyone who comes in to wish a happy New Year. You know the UPS guy, the mailman, the neighbors, the old lady with the walker I lend twenty dollars to every week and Ernie Borgnine. It's a Carroll Gardens tradition.

That view is exactly what the paragraph I quoted discusses. As much as it may bore you, it pretty well describes why that's such a big deal for many other people.

"Something is always going to be offensive to someone."Moral equivalency is such an easy way out. But if it's true, and the correct response is "so what", why are you offended at what I say? Am I not permitted the same ability, the freedom to offend? Why not?

Zachary Paul Sire said..."Simon, I'll stop asking to be seen as 'normal' when people stop going out of their way to label me 'abnormal' by passing discriminatory laws against me and comparing me to pedophiles."

So you'll stop asking to be seen as normal when you are? Under what circumstances do you usually continue to ask for what you've already been given?

Trooper - How about the guy who delivers the morning paper? Nothing like sitting on the porch steps at 4AM with your bottle of Jag, waiting. And WTF is this all about? You can get into a lot of trouble for this, you know.

I have to confess, every time I see the ad for Milk and Penn says the "I'm here to recruit you" line, he sounds like the mentally retarded character he played in I Am Sam. Hopefully I won't hear it if I see the movie.

It's not hypocrisy or self-hate to point out that some elements of the "gay community" (using the term for lack of a better one) have been and continue to be destructive and depraved.

Phew, good thing such elements haven't emerged in the straight world! /sarcasm

Sorry - statements like that are what nourish identity politics. I have very little intellectual sympathy for "community-think" but comments like that bother me more. It's not especially brave to admit that every despised community includes people who deserve to be despised.

Not to diminish the importance of Milk's activism or his role in the campaign against the Briggs Initiative, but the single most important event in that campaign was Ronald Reagan's public opposition to it. (See From Identity to Politics: The The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United Statespp.130-31)

Phenomenal scene, especially in the context of what happens after the heist. I wish that Reagan had played more movie villains. I started that movie thinking that he would probably make a mediocre bad guy, but he was excellent. His intelligence comes through so obviously in his eyes that the villain seems especially calculating and formidable.

I've never heard of it until you posted your porn link, Pogo. But I don't go trolling rightwing website looking for evidence of debauched gay events. I don't hang out at evangelical churches, either, where I'm sure this is a bit hit as well.

Jen, well said: It's not especially brave to admit that every despised community includes people who deserve to be despised.

So I just read the whole thread and not just the movie-related comments, and there are people actually defending Up Your Alley?! I cannot imagine how anyone, aside from the actual participants in the event, could not find that offensive.

It's okay to find some things tasteless and bad. It's okay to have class. You don't have to apologize for every depraved twit who wants to pee on people, masturbate on people, or have public sex. Geeze.

Freeman, I don't know how closely I read the comments, but I don't know if anyone was defending it. But here's how I view it.

Was anyone hurt? No. Were the adults consenting? Apparently. Am I offended? No. Is this one tiny sliver of a population? Yes. Would I want to see my kid on that website? No. Do I think it's tasteless? You betcha. I think the same thing of anyone flaunting what I think should be private.

Part of the reason I'm not offended is that I think the participants want me to be, by pushing the envelope. I also avoid conflict, and by being offended, I'm courting conflict, so...

I do think it's silly to go looking for things to offend you, though. And then to keep going back to them. I don't know if that's my avoidance, though, or just good common sense.

The generic you, of course, not you as in you. If you know what I mean.

We're not talking about some wild, private party. We're talking about a public event on a public street. As it's a public event, it's ridiculous to attack Pogo for posting about it, accusing him of looking for porn. (Though one could argue his conclusions, but many seem to be finding it easier to just call him a closeted gay guy or a porn head.) And it's certainly valid to criticize San Francisco for becoming overly lax on community standards. It has. The pictures help make that case.

I'm not sure which group is more tiresome, the people who go to see "Milk" in order to show how tolerant and liberal they are (as opposed to going to see it because they want to see a good movie), or people who don't go to see "Milk" and say they their refusal to see the movie is their brave stand against political correctness and liberal Hollywood.

Actually, that's not true. I'm sure the second group is more tiresome. The first group, while annoying, is generally well-meaning and clumsily tries to make this country an even better place to live in, while the latter group generally makes things worse for everyone around them. They've particularly been successful in doing so over the last eight or so years, but hopefully that trend will be reversed or at least mitigated in the new year.

The guys are not my type. I wouldn't attend something like that and neither would my friends. Even if the guys were my type I would not attend that. I don't find that interesting sexually. I don't like watching people have sex and don't like to be watched.

Don't get your panties in a knot over those street festivals in San Francisco. I have NO idea why that is considered relevant, since this is a post about Milk, which has nothing to do with those festivals. But my understanding of those festivals is that they're sexually explicit and technically outdoors but not "in public" because you need to be 18 to get in. If you're gonna get all offended about that, why not just get offended by the existence of pornography? Perhaps you do. Seems to me to be a bunch of nothin'.

By the way, I say Milk is the best movie of the year. The Fall would be the main competition.

We're not talking about some wild, private party. We're talking about a public event on a public street.

It may be "public" but it's not like any old Joe Six Pack will just stumble upon Dore Alley and be inundated with dicks and butts. It's a very insulated, local event that everyone in the community knows about. If you want to go, go. If you don't, don't.

And I am not "defending" the event, as someone said. It's a silly gathering that is obviously and clearly for the enjoyment of consenting adults. I never would have thought about it or spoke about it if Pogo hadn't been peddling XXX pictures of it.

Now.

I got my outfit for tonight. A Ben Sherman "super slim fit" shirt with fun buttons all over it, which is solid navy blue with no lame designs or patterns. Simple and classy. For pants, I found a classic blue pair of Paper Denim jeans, on sale, for $39, size 31w, 34l. I feel like I'm venturing into a poor imitation of Titus with these details, so I will stop.

"Actually, that's not true. I'm sure the second group is more tiresome. The first group, while annoying, is generally well-meaning and clumsily tries to make this country an even better place to live in, while the latter group generally makes things worse for everyone around them."

Why do you assume that the second group is not "generally well-meaning"? Why do you assume they aren't trying to make this country and even better place to live in? I've never understood why it's assumed that liberals "mean well" and that conservatives are simply "evil" or "ignorant".

"They've particularly been successful in doing so over the last eight or so years, but hopefully that trend will be reversed or at least mitigated in the new year."

Blah blah blah. It seems to me that "well-meaning" liberals tend to fuck things up just as often as "well-meaning" conservatives. Perhaps more in the long run, since some of the nation's worst problems like the damage done by the welfare state and the massive enlargement of federal government and federal power in the 1930s were the result of "well-meaning" liberals. The road to Hell, you should recall, is paved with good intentions. What will Obama's "good intentions" and the pavers required to lay them cost us? That road is probably getting mighty close to Hell by now.

"It may be "public" but it's not like any old Joe Six Pack will just stumble upon Dore Alley and be inundated with dicks and butts. It's a very insulated, local event that everyone in the community knows about. If you want to go, go. If you don't, don't."

Do you agree, then, that a public street should be allowed to be used in that manner, at a cost to the taxpayers of the community? Do you believe that the police should selectively ignore laws that would get the "revelers" arrested in any other public venue? Should the local government be allowing an event in a public venue that encourages and consists of dangerous sexual behavior that may lead to the transmission of diseases that the public health system will most likely have to pay for?

A number of years ago a group of us were arguing about the "normalcy" of gay sex. Then my beautiful Jewish girlfriend spoke up and said "Look, its not all that complicated. The parts don't fit and if you try to make 'em fit, your gonna get sick." This brought the argument to a quick stop and somebody rolled a joint. I still wonder what the hell her point was.

I'm not interested in judging whatever local community events are going, so long as they don't hurt me or anyone I care about. If the taxpayers up there have a problem with it (which they obviously don't), they can take it up with their local elected officials.

And keep in mind that this event takes place, literally, in an alley, for a couple of blocks, so let's not pretend that it's some massive event that disrupts the entire city of San Francisco.

Freeman Hunt said...When a city blocks off part of a public street from people under 18 to project pornography in the public space, let me know.

A portion of the street being blocked off for a purpose that you don't particularly want to participate in may be annoying, but it's hardly something to get up-in-arms about from thousands of miles away, or even from a few blocks away. It's not nearly as bad as these disgusting marathons that lock down large portions of a city just so people can congratulate themselves on what heroes they are for jogging.

Also, many of you are adamant about these things, when I doubt you really know the extent to which they are or are not public. Something can be on a normally-public street and not be open to the public.

And again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to Milk, a biopic about a man who died years before these fairs began.

Why do you assume that the second group is not "generally well-meaning"?

Personal experience with social conservative types. I live in Texas, after all, which is a wonderful place to live, despite the nontrivial amount of social conservatives who live here.

Perhaps more in the long run, since some of the nation's worst problems like the damage done by the welfare state and the massive enlargement of federal government and federal power in the 1930s were the result of "well-meaning" liberals.

That conclusion is controversial, at best. While Amity Shlaes and her modern American Liberty League supporters may like to promote that sort of ideas, most thinking people believe (correctly) that the New Deal and Roosevelt's leadership during that era made America a much better place. If memory serves, even Ronald Reagan had lots of good things to say about FDR.

Anyway, off to a New Year's Eve party, which will be thrown by a libertarian-Republican friend of mine. Should be a good time, and I'm all for bipartisanship at the right moments in time.

mtrobertsattorney said...A number of years ago a group of us were arguing about the "normalcy" of gay sex. Then my beautiful Jewish girlfriend spoke up and said "Look, its not all that complicated. The parts don't fit and if you try to make 'em fit, your gonna get sick."

And again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to Milk, a biopic about a man who died years before these fairs began.

An important point. Why do people assume that Milk would like these sorts of festivals? Had he lived, it's possible that Milk may have become some sort of a conservative (at least on some matters) over the years, particularly once the HIV epidemic struck. He started out as a Goldwater supporter, after all.

So now we're equating public orgies with sporting events? Again, there's nothing wrong with taste. There's nothing wrong with discriminating between what is and what isn't appropriate in the public space.

And again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to Milk, a biopic about a man who died years before these fairs began.

Digression being a new thing around here.

It's not like it's a nativity scene or something truly offensive that should only be tolerated (just barely) in public.

somefeller said...And again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to Milk, a biopic about a man who died years before these fairs began.

An important point. Why do people assume that Milk would like these sorts of festivals? Had he lived, it's possible that Milk may have become some sort of a conservative (at least on some matters) over the years, particularly once the HIV epidemic struck. He started out as a Goldwater supporter, after all.

Yeah, good point, the entire Harvey Milk story is pre-AIDS and has to be viewed in that context. Harvey Milk himself never heard of HIV. And in the movie, his boyfriend points out that he used to be a Republican.

You can always count on Zachery to screech his paranoia about being painted a deviant homosexual outcast by lashing out at the rest of the heterosexual population by calling them hate-filled homophobes who don't understand homosexuality and it's rainbow of flavors while trying to uphold the virtues of homosexuality and it's deliberate contrarian nature by applauding the entertainments industry's depiction of what they think a bold, out-there, fresh-faced, charismatic, foul-mouthed homosexual is.

Zachery to call you a tool would be an insult to hammers and screwdrivers everywhere. Your nonsense has been falling on deaf ears since you put your hands to a keyboard.

What's intellectually lazy is your inability to do anything other than express feigned outrage over something that is completely inconsequential and not engage with my legitimate comparison other than to, yet again, feign outrage. Telling people how offended you are by something might sway a lot of people, but it does nothing for me.

not engage with my legitimate comparison other than to, yet again, feign outrage

Your "legitimate comparison?" It's such a bizarre comparison that you're going to have to explain its validity before anyone addresses it. You can't just assert that two things, which are totally different on their faces, are the same without explaining how.

Do you just mean that they're both public? If so, that has been addressed. The response is that not all public events are equally acceptable.

JohnAnnArbor said... [quoting me]It's not nearly as bad as these disgusting marathons that lock down large portions of a city just so people can congratulate themselves on what heroes they are for jogging.

There's a resentment waiting for greater explanation.

You have to be in a situation where you can't get anywhere in the city because some marathon is spiraling through the whole city, causing traffic jams and making you an hour late for anything. Go to the gym if you wanna work out! Don't close the city. When I did the AIDS Ride, we dealt with traffic like everybody else, and we went 500 miles. If you've got some stupid festival and all you're doing is blocking a little alleyway or a block or two on a street that isn't an important connecting road for commuters, knock yourself out! Just make sure you're bringing in some money for the beloved economy.

This is the difference between living in the real world and looking at issues in the abstract.

You have to be in a situation where you can't get anywhere in the city because some marathon is spiraling through the whole city, causing traffic jams and making you an hour late for anything.

That's an issue of whether or not a city should have big, community events at all. That's not a community standards issue. That's what some of us are objecting to, not the idea of public events, but the idea of totally depraved and obscene public events.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said... "[T]his is a post about Milk, which has nothing to do with those festivals."

I thought Pogo's comments were asserting that what Milk did set the stage for later events, including those he's talking about here (the, uh, what's it called - the "Up Your Alley Fair" or whatever). And maybe he's wrong, but surely the assertion makes it germane to the topic, if for no other purpose than explaining why linking Milk to subsequent events is inaccurate. For example, the Iraq War would, to some extent, seem germane to a post about a biopic of George H.W. Bush, insofar as it was his refusal to pursue Hussein to Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War that set the stage for (and in my own view, necessitated) the later action by his son.

This will be my last comment on this topic, because it's getting really redundant. My point is that the event is closed to the public and therefore it's not a matter of exposing people to pornography in an inappropriate way. As for the matter of public space being used for a private event you don't like, at that point I think the only real concern is its actual effect on the public, which I have described and which I think is based on its effect on traffic.

Hey, you're the one commenting about people peeing on each other and masturbating on each other. If you're comfortable enough to pass judgment on other peoples' private parties in a public forum, you better be fine with someone questioning your sexual behavior. Unfortunately, based on your comments here, I can only assume that your sex life is boring. Too bad.

I'm going to assume that was sarcasm. You can't seriously be suggesting privacy interests attach to actions taken in a public setting, or compare what is done in private with what is done in public! There are arguments to be made either way for a ban on sodomy in a private setting (personally I'm generally against them), but there's nothing at all to be said against a ban on public sexual conduct.

Identity politics here once again slides into its expected pattern, wherein any criticism of even a small part of the group is forbidden, and represented as an attack on the whole.

I quoted a book that explains how these 'celebrations' can be detrimental not just to the city, but to gay people that desire parity.

Milk was part of the SF gay movement into politics, and that set the stage for events like Up Your Alley Fair.

An unintended consequence perhaps, but a direct result. Debate that if you will, but try to do so without claiming people are secretly gay (which as I said is a very odd perjorative, much as it rests on the idea that 'there's something wrong with that.')

none of your business ..."As are the sex lives of the people in Dore Alley."Sex on a public street is none of my business?Since when?

Again, you know nothing about the public/private nature of Dore Alley, how the event is handled, who can see what's going on in there, who can't, etc. So unless you live in an apartment over one of the golden shower tents or leather booths, you really come off as a fool judging these people for behavior that has no effect on you or anyone you know, and bothers no one in the community.

Remove the "gay" aspect of this for moment. Public depravity occurred. This is nothing new. And there is nothing good about it. Christopher, you make it sound like "Up Your Alley" was staged on some Hollywood set. The fact is it was staged on public property. I side with Freeman here.

The link between MILK (which I probably won't see) and the Up Your Alley event is obvious to most. Again, it's not even really a "gay" issue. A part of San Francisco is depraved. Lax city government is partly responsible. "Milk" is about San Francisco government. You're really arguing about whether Harvey Milk represents some sort of tipping point. I'm voting present on that one.

"Milk" is an excellent movie, and I would encourage those of you who are resisting it to see it with an open mind. I was going to shun it too, because I didn't see much point in watching the recreation of a historical event that could be read about in 2 minutes, and I don't like political propaganda or actor fests. But I decided to see it because we're seeing all the very well-reviewed year-end movies this week and it's obviously on the list.

The issue of public sex may be important, but it's not too relevant to "Milk," which depicts an era in which the police were raiding gay bars and arresting people for no reason and many people thought gay teachers should be fired even if they never did or said anything gay-related in class. I'm almost sure no one here supports that kind of discrimination. The political issue is an easy one for us now.

That means you can see this movie as an interesting character study of a man moving into political power. It's surprisingly sympathetic to the murderer. We see that Milk got a little power mad in the end and used his clout against Dan White, who had his own problems. It's really a very well made drama about the political process, and not a big piece of gay rights propaganda.

Penn does not overact. He gives an interesting performance. And Brolin is devastatingly good as the murderer. Really. Just put aside thoughts of what it might be and see it.

chickenlittle said...Remove the "gay" aspect of this for moment. Public depravity occurred. This is nothing new. And there is nothing good about it. Christopher, you make it sound like "Up Your Alley" was staged on some Hollywood set. The fact is it was staged on public property

I know I said I was done, but let me say something. "Hollywood set" is an interesting choice of words. As someone who lives in Los Angeles, I frequently see city blocks closed off for filming a street scene. The street is no longer open to the public when this happens. A couple months ago, they shot a scene for "Numb3rs" a block from my apartment, and the scene had police cars, fire trucks, etc. It looked like they were shooting something just after a big accident or crisis. Now, what if they shot a scene with something inappropriate for younger viewers? A violent scene or (*gasp*) a sexually explicit scene? Would it be wrong to close off the street from public view and shoot the scene there? If (and this is a big if) there is any violation of public standards in doing this, it seems VERY minimal, and certainly not enough to get all worked up about. And CERTAINLY not enough to reflect poorly on a discriminated-against minority group through some flimsy connection to the filming.

I am really leaving now(!), but want to say a special New Year's "F**k You" to Palladian before I go. Yes, I do live at my mom's house (where he got the idea it was mom & dad, who knows), after being laid off and living on my own for my most of my adult life since turning 18. Paying off student loans and now working full time again for a national magazine, I estimate I'll be here at mom's, saving money and paying reduced rent, for at least the next 6 months. I'm obviously not complaining, so have all the fun you want, my dear Palladian.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said... "[W]hat if [a movie or TV production] shot a scene [in public] with something inappropriate for younger viewers? A violent scene or (*gasp*) a sexually explicit scene? Would it be wrong to close off the street from public view and shoot the scene there?"

Yes, actually. For one thing, why are they filming a scene involving public sex in the first place? For another, if applicable law forbids public sex, why on earth would the presence of a movie production make any difference? If there is a general law prohibiting and fining public nudity in effect in Madison, Wisconsin, we all agree (I assume) that it is violated when someone is drunk and takes their clothes off. Alcohol presumably doesn't make any difference to their liability. Is it not violated if there are three cameras pointing at them, along with a director and a script? I thought the camera added ten pounds, not free license to violate the law.

Now, what if they shot a scene with something inappropriate for younger viewers? A violent scene or (*gasp*) a sexually explicit scene? Would it be wrong to close off the street from public view and shoot the scene there?

Yes. I don't care if it was gay or straight. These sorts of intrusions into public space are disturbing, and they didn't used to occur. I think about the only defense one could make is some sort of Carnival comparison. That doesn't make it right. Nobody's even mentioned the commercial aspect of these events. Did anybody profit from "Up Your Alley"?

I'm not sure which group is more tiresome, the people who go to see "Milk" in order to show how tolerant and liberal they are (as opposed to going to see it because they want to see a good movie), or people who don't go to see "Milk" and say they their refusal to see the movie is their brave stand against political correctness and liberal Hollywood

I am not going to see the movie because

A) I have better things to do with my time

B) I have better things to do with my money

C) I lived in San Francisco at that time... one block off from Castro Street, which used to be a pretty nice neigborhood at the time. I was there at the seminal (snark) event.

and

D) There is nothing romantic or remotely admirable about the Gay Movement (snrk)at that time. It was full of a bunch of narcissistic and self indulgent sex addicted crippled personalities who abused drugs, their own bodies and the neighborhood.

E) I wouldn't piss on Sean Penn if he were on fire, much less contribute one dime to his income.

Downey: "Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Count toothpicks to your cards. Autistic, sure. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard."

Heh. Leather Crotch Bridles 'R Us looks as though it probably profited as well. There's nothing more attractive than a less than fit man with a few leather straps wound too tightly around his body like the netting on a packaged ham.

However, his turn as the murderer in Dead Man Walking did change me from anti-death penalty to pro-death penalty, so I do owe him one.

I meant to comment on this earlier. Thank you. I thought I was the only one at the end of that movie saying, "Am I supposed to be upset now? Did everyone forget about the beginning of the movie already?"

Getting here late, but I have to say that pogo should get some kind of award for his trolling here.

He managed (with a few allies) to completely change the subject of the thread from a movie (whatever it's virtues or flaws as art might be) to a discussion of sexual acts he finds distasteful and his obsession that gay rights =/= public sex of a kind he finds distasteful.

What's amazing is how everybody just followed along (this is my last post on this subject here).

I'll probably catch the movie on dvd but I'm not a fan of Penn (though he was great in Sweet and Low Down) or Van Zant (liked Drugstore Cowboy and To Die For (though Kidman was still a bad actress then), hated a couple of other things but I've mostly passed over his stuff though I've caught them in parts here and there).My problem with Van Zant is the amateur hour vibe his movies give off, there's usually a cheap, dogme-ish look and too much of them seem improvised (and I mean that in a bad way).

Gee thanks, Mr. Farris. What this blog has always needed is a prissy and prunefaced schoolmarm ready to rap the fingers of commenters who stray off course. So I salute you in that effort, sir; you are clearly gifted in the field, and know how to color in the lines, and make the leaves green not purple.

I made a comment about why I had not planned on seeing the film much as the 1984 documentary The Times of Harvey Milk sated any thirst for that narrative.

Moreover, though Sean Penn may be a gifted actor, I have viscerally hated every single goddamned character he has played, including (and maybe especially) in Mystic River. (If I could kill a movie, that would be the one.) That disgust may be the intended effect, for he succeeds, but adding in his reverence for marxist dictators makes it hard for me to suspend disbelief.

Now I see Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, albeit done really really well, yet still I see Penn, and therefore ick.

My follow-up comment was meant to be a snide reference to the aftermath of Milk's efforts. A throwaway, really, that I thought no one would respond to. You can thank Zachary for turning that up to 11.

I have no desire to read this entire thread, having divined the essence of the war between Althousian gays & straights from a representative sample of comments.

I do respect the right to privacy in one's sex life and if, as Harvey Milk's wiki entry suggests, gays were forced into having sex in public places due to oppressive laws and the threat of eviction from their homes, that is very unfortunate and unjust. I believe our society has evolved since then to where the majority of people and even the laws allow more freedom of sexual expression, so long as it is not visible to the general public. Young children and their parents should not be subjected to the viewing of overt sexual acts, homosexual or otherwise, even if they happen to blunder into certain areas of San Francisco on "special" days.

A couple of additional points - first, it seems that every "gay" themed movie is worthy of adulation from Hollywood, whether it is actually a good film or not. Perhaps the Penn performance really is great, I will never know for sure because I won't see it. I object to the notion that any motion picture or acting role deserves awards simply because it depicts some political position that the left deems "good". The same thing seems to have happened with the formerly respectable Nobel prize, with it being awarded to those who criticize the internationally hated Bush administration - Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and even Yasser Arafat. This practice undermines the value of these prizes and contributes to the cynicism of political moderates and conservatives.

Second, I must note that Palladian always manages to maintain his classy and refined demeanor no matter the subject at hand. Kudos to you sir, and thanks.